COOL TALKING POINTS
Rev. 4-24-03

1  USDA should interpret the law to maximize the commodities to be labeled.

• Enhancing a commodity with water, flavoring, salt, or other seasoning should not exclude a commodity from the labeling requirements.
  
• Cooking, curing, roasting, or restructuring should not exclude a commodity from the labeling requirements.

1  USDA should not restrict retailer flexibility in labeling covered commodities.

• The Agency’s voluntary guidelines mandate that terms such as “Produce of Country X” or “Grown in Country Y” be used to denote the origin of the covered product. In the final regulations, we believe the Agency should accept the listing or marking of the individual country name, or recognized abbreviation, e.g., United States or USA, as being sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.

1  USDA should not impose a regulatory burden on persons Congress did not include as regulated entities.

2   Congress listed all the persons who would be subject to the Secretary’s discretionary authority to require a verifiable record-keeping audit trail. Included are persons who prepare, store, handle, or distribute a covered commodity for resale. Excluded are producers who sell live cattle, hogs, and sheep (not covered commodities) to persons who subsequently transform these live animals into covered commodities; and growers who sell covered commodities to those who subsequently prepare, store, handle, or distribute a covered commodity for resale. The Agency should not use the statutory reference to "suppliers" in section 282(e) of the Act as the basis for regulating producers or growers of covered commodities unless they are direct sellers to retailers.  That provision requires those supplying a covered commodity to a retailer to provide information on product origin to the retailer.  Thus, that provision can only refer to those selling directly to the retailer, not indirect sellers.

1  USDA must ensure that retailers cannot impose a greater burden on suppliers than is required by the law or the rules.

• Retailers and packers have already signaled their intent to put a greater burden on suppliers than is required by the COOL law. For example, some packers are demanding the producers obtain a third-party certification of origin.
  
• USDA can accomplish this by stating that only USDA may conduct audits, and all suppliers and retailers must rely exclusively on the markings on livestock or lack thereof, or the origin representations made on sales transaction documents.

1  USDA should require all imported livestock to be permanently marked with a brand or tattoo indicating its country of origin before it enters the United States.

• All livestock not marked with a foreign brand or tattoo should be considered born and raised in the USA (presumption of domestic origin).
  2   Producers would not need to keep records as the origin of livestock would be determined by whether or not an animal had a foreign marking.
  3   If producers want to claim that foreign livestock were fed in the United States, they should be allowed to voluntarily keep records to substantiate their claim.

1  USDA should establish a “grandfather” clause that will allow all livestock presently in the United States to be cleared from the system without affecting their value.

1  The Agency should establish in rules that labeling of fish and shellfish shall include the specific designations of “farmed” or “wild” in addition to the country of origin.

1  USDA should utilize existing paperwork transactions already used between packers, processors, and retailers to add a country of origin designation.

• As a service to the industry, USDA could develop standardized forms for use where no pre-existing documents are adaptable.

1  The Agency should not impose a greater labeling requirement on blended products other than requiring the listing of the countries (and only the countries) from which the individual components originate.